What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351228 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5351228?

Cleaning: $869.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,219.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remote: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains/Blinds: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $495.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351228?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13344815-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351228 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5351228?

Cleaning: $869.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,219.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remote: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains/Blinds: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $495.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351228?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13344815-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5351228 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5351228 — net $4,376.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Decontamination to wooden and concrete flooring	$1,219.00	Cleaning: Decontamination to wooden and concrete flooring
Replace carpet	$1,000.00	Replace carpet
Replace curtains/blinds	$650.00	Replace curtains/blinds
Garage door remote	$115.00	Garage door remote
Rubbish removal: Skip bin hire	$495.01	Rubbish removal: Skip bin hire
Cleaning	$869.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,376.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,376.51

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ name and identifying details.
Isobel Sveistrup and Brendan Sveistrup must pay [The landlord/s] $4,376.51 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlords attended the video hearing. There was no attendance by the tenants and the hearing proceeded in their absence. Background
The tenancy commenced in March 2025. On 4 November 2025 the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears and possession was granted to the landlord on 9 November 2025.
The landlords have applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have made a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of healthy homes standards.
Despite the lack of appearance at the hearing by the tenants, I have still proceeded to determine their claims on the papers and based on the evidence provided.
Both parties have provided significant documentation in support of their respective claims, and I confirm I have reviewed and considered this, even if there is no direct reference. Landlord’s claims

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlords say that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and they were required to carry out cleaning, collect and dispose of rubbish. They claim $869.50 for cleaning and rubbish collection and $495.01 for skip bin hire. Photographs and evidence of the costings have been provided.
The landlords submit that the wooden flooring in the house and the concrete flooring in the garage had dried cat excrement throughout. Some of the excrement was within the grooves of the wooden flooring and there were cigarette butts on the garage floor. The property had an overpowering smell as a result. The landlords were required to carry out extensive decontamination cleaning at the total invoiced cost of $1,219.00.
On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and the amounts claimed reasonably reflect the works that were likely required.
One of the garage door remotes were missing at the end of the tenancy and the landlords were required to replace this at a cost of $115.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlords say that damage was caused to the property during the tenancy as follows: a. The carpet in two of the bedrooms had a very strong cat excrement and marijuana smell, and there were marks throughout. The landlords were required to replace the carpet to remedy the issue and there was no insurance available due to the excess being higher than the repair costs. The total cost of the replacement carpet was $2,127.73. The carpet was said to be around six-seven years old but was still within its useful lifespan. b. The curtains and blinds also had a very strong smell of cat excrement, and they were also long and sat on the damaged flooring. As a result, the landlords say that these required replacement at the invoiced cost of $1,219.00. The curtains were estimated to be around 4 years old at the end of the tenancy.
Photographs and evidence of the costings have been provided in support of these claims.
On review of the evidence, I consider that it was more than likely that the carpet and curtains and blinds were damaged during the tenancy and required replacement.
These items were not new and so I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlords should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I therefore award $1,000.00 towards the carpet repair costs and $650.00 towards the curtains and blinds.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet and curtains. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenants’ claims
The tenants claim that the landlords have breached their obligations under the RTA in relation to healthy homes standards (HHS). The law
Section 45 of the RTA requires properties to comply with HHS standards in several different respects.
For insulation, the date of HHS compliance was 1 July 2019. For other HHS requirements, compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) of the RTA.
The tenants say that they had a healthy homes assessor come through the property and advise on failings and additional works that were required, and that they had issued a 14-day notice to remedy to the landlord in September 2025.
They also advise that during the tenancy the fence surrounding the property was rotten, resulting in their kittens and son being unable to play outside due to the healthy and safety risk of the fence collapsing. In addition to exemplary damages the tenants claim compensation of $2,000.00 due to the excess amount of power required to heat the house over winter due to a broken window.
The tenants have property a letter from Healthy Homes Initiative dated 19 September 2025. It notes a few recommendations to the landlord including: a. That parts of the ceiling insulation were folded over, and some underfloor insulation panels had become loose. b. Two window latches require attention. c. Concerns had been raised about heat pump maintenance by the tenant.
There were two other issues around the pergola drainage and security light fitting, unrelated to healthy homes. The letter states: Please note this letter is not a compliance notice. It further states that it has been provided as part of the healthy homes initiative to support the family to have a drier and healthier home, and I note it also gives several recommendations to the tenants around heating, ventilation and cleanliness.
The landlords say that the home complied with healthy homes, and they were not aware of any issues until the 14-day notice and letter were provided. They responded the next day that they would carry out the repairs. They had never been advised by the tenants of any healthy homes concerns prior to this correspondence.
They say that the insulation repairs were carried out by early October. The window latches were repaired by 23 September 2025 and that they had arranged for a further contractor to remedy the shrunken rubber seals however the contractor declined to do this work due to the smell in the property (supporting email provided). They further say there were no issues with the heat pump, the pergola was not an issue and had sufficient drainage (not related to healthy homes), the issue with the security light had been fixed by the end of September and the fence repairs were also carried out.
In short, they say the property complied with healthy homes standards and that as soon as they were advised of any issues, they remedied these as promptly as possible. They also state that the letter was not a compliance notice of breach of healthy homes and that they confirmed this directly with the person who had conducted the inspection for the tenants and wrote the letter. They further say that the property is their home and they wanted it to be safe and healthy as they intended to return to it.
There is no obligation on landlords to remedy issues they are not aware of. I am satisfied that the evidence shows that the property complied with healthy homes at the commencement of the tenancy, and that as soon as they were aware of any healthy homes or maintenance issues, they remedied these as soon as possible. The evidence also isn’t conclusive that there was non- compliance with healthy health standards, just that there may be some issues, and I’m satisfied that the landlords acted reasonably in response to these.
There is also inadequate evidence to suggest that the tenants had higher power bills because of any of these issues.
The claims for exemplary damages and compensation are dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties requested name suppression on their application forms. As the landlords have been substantially successful, this is granted. No reasons have been advanced by the tenants as to why they should have suppression or why their personal interests would outweigh the public interest and accordingly this request is declined. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 25 March 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5351228 — net $4,376.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Decontamination to wooden and concrete flooring	$1,219.00	Cleaning: Decontamination to wooden and concrete flooring
Replace carpet	$1,000.00	Replace carpet
Replace curtains/blinds	$650.00	Replace curtains/blinds
Garage door remote	$115.00	Garage door remote
Rubbish removal: Skip bin hire	$495.01	Rubbish removal: Skip bin hire
Cleaning	$869.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,376.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,376.51

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ name and identifying details.
Isobel Sveistrup and Brendan Sveistrup must pay [The landlord/s] $4,376.51 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlords attended the video hearing. There was no attendance by the tenants and the hearing proceeded in their absence. Background
The tenancy commenced in March 2025. On 4 November 2025 the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears and possession was granted to the landlord on 9 November 2025.
The landlords have applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have made a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches of healthy homes standards.
Despite the lack of appearance at the hearing by the tenants, I have still proceeded to determine their claims on the papers and based on the evidence provided.
Both parties have provided significant documentation in support of their respective claims, and I confirm I have reviewed and considered this, even if there is no direct reference. Landlord’s claims

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlords say that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and they were required to carry out cleaning, collect and dispose of rubbish. They claim $869.50 for cleaning and rubbish collection and $495.01 for skip bin hire. Photographs and evidence of the costings have been provided.
The landlords submit that the wooden flooring in the house and the concrete flooring in the garage had dried cat excrement throughout. Some of the excrement was within the grooves of the wooden flooring and there were cigarette butts on the garage floor. The property had an overpowering smell as a result. The landlords were required to carry out extensive decontamination cleaning at the total invoiced cost of $1,219.00.
On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and the amounts claimed reasonably reflect the works that were likely required.
One of the garage door remotes were missing at the end of the tenancy and the landlords were required to replace this at a cost of $115.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlords say that damage was caused to the property during the tenancy as follows: a. The carpet in two of the bedrooms had a very strong cat excrement and marijuana smell, and there were marks throughout. The landlords were required to replace the carpet to remedy the issue and there was no insurance available due to the excess being higher than the repair costs. The total cost of the replacement carpet was $2,127.73. The carpet was said to be around six-seven years old but was still within its useful lifespan. b. The curtains and blinds also had a very strong smell of cat excrement, and they were also long and sat on the damaged flooring. As a result, the landlords say that these required replacement at the invoiced cost of $1,219.00. The curtains were estimated to be around 4 years old at the end of the tenancy.
Photographs and evidence of the costings have been provided in support of these claims.
On review of the evidence, I consider that it was more than likely that the carpet and curtains and blinds were damaged during the tenancy and required replacement.
These items were not new and so I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlords should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I therefore award $1,000.00 towards the carpet repair costs and $650.00 towards the curtains and blinds.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet and curtains. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenants’ claims
The tenants claim that the landlords have breached their obligations under the RTA in relation to healthy homes standards (HHS). The law
Section 45 of the RTA requires properties to comply with HHS standards in several different respects.
For insulation, the date of HHS compliance was 1 July 2019. For other HHS requirements, compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) of the RTA.
The tenants say that they had a healthy homes assessor come through the property and advise on failings and additional works that were required, and that they had issued a 14-day notice to remedy to the landlord in September 2025.
They also advise that during the tenancy the fence surrounding the property was rotten, resulting in their kittens and son being unable to play outside due to the healthy and safety risk of the fence collapsing. In addition to exemplary damages the tenants claim compensation of $2,000.00 due to the excess amount of power required to heat the house over winter due to a broken window.
The tenants have property a letter from Healthy Homes Initiative dated 19 September 2025. It notes a few recommendations to the landlord including: a. That parts of the ceiling insulation were folded over, and some underfloor insulation panels had become loose. b. Two window latches require attention. c. Concerns had been raised about heat pump maintenance by the tenant.
There were two other issues around the pergola drainage and security light fitting, unrelated to healthy homes. The letter states: Please note this letter is not a compliance notice. It further states that it has been provided as part of the healthy homes initiative to support the family to have a drier and healthier home, and I note it also gives several recommendations to the tenants around heating, ventilation and cleanliness.
The landlords say that the home complied with healthy homes, and they were not aware of any issues until the 14-day notice and letter were provided. They responded the next day that they would carry out the repairs. They had never been advised by the tenants of any healthy homes concerns prior to this correspondence.
They say that the insulation repairs were carried out by early October. The window latches were repaired by 23 September 2025 and that they had arranged for a further contractor to remedy the shrunken rubber seals however the contractor declined to do this work due to the smell in the property (supporting email provided). They further say there were no issues with the heat pump, the pergola was not an issue and had sufficient drainage (not related to healthy homes), the issue with the security light had been fixed by the end of September and the fence repairs were also carried out.
In short, they say the property complied with healthy homes standards and that as soon as they were advised of any issues, they remedied these as promptly as possible. They also state that the letter was not a compliance notice of breach of healthy homes and that they confirmed this directly with the person who had conducted the inspection for the tenants and wrote the letter. They further say that the property is their home and they wanted it to be safe and healthy as they intended to return to it.
There is no obligation on landlords to remedy issues they are not aware of. I am satisfied that the evidence shows that the property complied with healthy homes at the commencement of the tenancy, and that as soon as they were aware of any healthy homes or maintenance issues, they remedied these as soon as possible. The evidence also isn’t conclusive that there was non- compliance with healthy health standards, just that there may be some issues, and I’m satisfied that the landlords acted reasonably in response to these.
There is also inadequate evidence to suggest that the tenants had higher power bills because of any of these issues.
The claims for exemplary damages and compensation are dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties requested name suppression on their application forms. As the landlords have been substantially successful, this is granted. No reasons have been advanced by the tenants as to why they should have suppression or why their personal interests would outweigh the public interest and accordingly this request is declined. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 25 March 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351228 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351228 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions